Crypto industry players are reportedly concerned about a new section added to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act of 2025 ahead of today’s legislative process, which seems to resemble the regulatory approach of the previous administration.
The legislation, introduced on May 29 by Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee French Hill, seeks to establish a regulatory framework for crypto assets in the US and provide the long-awaited clarity and protection for the industry.
Moreover, the CLARITY Act also seeks to facilitate the growth of crypto projects by providing developers with a clear pathway to secure funding under the oversight of the US watchdog.
“Our bill brings long-overdue clarity to the digital asset ecosystem, prioritizes consumer protection and American innovation, and builds off our work in the 118th Congress,” Hill stated last month.
However, Terret reported that the new amendment would “eliminate exemptions for previously issued tokens,” giving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “weeping authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether each token qualifies as a security.”
It’s worth noting that the CLARITY Act has been heavily criticized by Democrats, with some suggesting that the bill could allow US President Donald Trump to “cash in” on its crypto ventures.
Democratic Representative Maxine Waters expressed her concerns last week, affirming that “this rushed, overly complicated bill will increase investor harm, which already runs rampant in today’s crypto market.”
She argued that “Some of the riskiest activities are broadly exempted from the bill, leaving our constituents with no one to turn to when their money vanishes. The bill puts our national security at risk and contains no penalties for crypto criminals.”
Notably, crypto industry players and US lawmakers pushed for the inclusion of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) in the market structure legislation, seeking to offer a safe harbor for software developers and infrastructure providers.
This is a meaningful step toward protecting developers of non-custodial, peer-to-peer technologies while maintaining strong oversight of custodial financial institutions.
The updated bill reflects a careful balance–building on FinCEN’s 2019 guidance to clarify that when developers and infrastructure providers don’t control customer funds, they shouldn’t be regulated like money transmitters.
